Summary: In a study involving 3,627 women, out of which 92 developed breast cancer, increased consumption of dairy products was found to be inversely associated with risk of breast cancer, particularly among premenopausal women. The subjects' food consumption was assessed via five 24-hour records completed over the course of 18 months prior to follow-up. 92 of the women developed breast cancer during the follow-up period. Results of Cox proportional hazards models found the relative risk of breast cancer significantly lower among subjects in the highest quartile of dairy food intake (RR=0.55), compared to subjects in the lowest quartile. When data for pre-menopausal women was analyzed separately, the risk was even more significantly reduced among those in the highest dairy food intake quartile (RR=0.35), compared to the lowest. When the data was controlled for calcium, none of these associations remained, suggesting that it is the calcium in dairy foods that helps to protect against breast cancer. When the subjects' calcium intakes were calculated, resulted showed an inverse association between calcium intake and breast cancer risk for all women (RR=0.55), and an even greater reduction in risk in pre-menopausal women (RR=0.26). The results of this study suggest that dairy food intake -through its calcium content or possibly through some other related component - may help to reduce the risk of breast cancer, particularly in pre-menopausal women. http://www.vitasearch.com/get-clp-summary/36740

Why is it that if any benefit of milk is observed, calcium is automatically considered? Reports a number of years back about the effect of milk on weight loss also implicated calcium. Now we have this report.

If it's really just calcium, couldn't we then just take calcium instead of milk?

Obviously, it's not only the calcium. Even the above study still admits the possibility of other components: "through its calcium content or possibly through some other related component."

For one thing, calcium needs vitamin D (also in milk) for absorption. And milk also contains proteins, which, I think, would play the bigger role in its benefits.

If the nutrients can not be absorbed after pasteurization then my kids would be long dead. That is just bunk.

My youngest lived on cows milk and orange juice primarily from age 6 months until 1.5 years. He refused all else and grew quite well.

I just don't believe all they say about pasteurized milk and on the other hand I am sure that raw milk is much better. My main concern with milk is hormones and antibiotics found in many of the products, hence we used organic.

__________________

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Marcus Aurelius

If the nutrients can not be absorbed after pasteurization then my kids would be long dead. That is just bunk.

My youngest lived on cows milk and orange juice primarily from age 6 months until 1.5 years. He refused all else and grew quite well.

I just don't believe all they say about pasteurized milk and on the other hand I am sure that raw milk is much better. My main concern with milk is hormones and antibiotics found in many of the products, hence we used organic.

I agree.

raw milk is probably better in many ways from pasteurized milk from what I've read.. but that doesn't mean the nutrients that remain in pasteurized milk can't be absorbed.

I use organic milk, too. Tastes better, too.

and the wulzen factor that is in raw milk is just a fraction of the wulzen factor in raw cane juice.

Weston Price.. I gather it is the big thing that is destroyed by pasteurization:

Quote:

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html
"The Wulzen Factor: Called the "antistiffness" factor, this compound is present in raw animal fat. Researcher Rosalind Wulzen discovered that this substance protects humans and animals from calcification of the joints—degenerative arthritis. It also protects against hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland.63 Calves fed pasteurized milk or skim milk develop joint stiffness and do not thrive. Their symptoms are reversed when raw butterfat is added to the diet. Pasteurization destroys the Wulzen factor—it is present only in raw butter, cream and whole milk."

Stigmasterol is an unsaturated plant sterol occurring in the plant fats or oils of soybean, calabar bean, and rape seed, and in a number of medicinal herbs, including the Chinese herbs Ophiopogon japonicus, or Mai men dong, and American Ginseng.

Stigmasterol is also found in various vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds and unpasteurized milk.

A DIETARY FACTOR ESSENTIAL FOR GUINEA PIGS*
VIII. THE ISOLATION OF THE ANTISTIFFNESS FACTOR
FROM CANE JUICE

BY WILLEM J. VAN WAGTENDONK AND ROSALIND WULZEN

(From the Department of Chemistry and the Department of Zoology,
Oregon State College, Corvallis)
(Received for publication, April 23, 1946)

The existence of a fat-soluble dietary factor essential for guinea pig
nutrition was well established through investigations by Wulzen and
Bahrs (l-3) and has been confirmed by Anderson and Caldwell.’ The
isolation of a highly active fraction from raw cream, capable of alleviating
an induced stiffness in guinea pigs, was described by van Wagtendonk and Wulzen (4). It seems apparent from physiological studies that the factor
has a regulatory effect on the phosphorus metabolism. One of the most
prominent changes found was a sharp decrease in the easily hydrolyzable
phosphorus fraction in the liver and kidneys during the deficiency. This
fraction responded immediately to the administration of the antistiffness
factor to deficient animals in that the values returned to normal after a
short time of treatment (5). Similar changes were observed in the concentration
of the acid-soluble phosphorus in the muscle. The concentrations
of creatine phosphate and adenosine tri- and diphosphate are
lower in the deficient animal (6). As a result of the deranged phosphorus
metabolism other, probably secondary, changes are (1) an increase in the
concentration of inorganic phosphorus and calcium in the blood, (2) an
increase in calcium in the body tissues (7), and (3) an abnormal distribution
of the protein nitrogen in the blood (.

Only 3 mg. of an oil, curative in a 0.1 y dosage, were obtained from
55 gallons of raw cream (4). Since much larger amounts of raw cream
would have been needed for a successful isolation of the antistiffness factor,
it was decided to test other possible sources of raw material for the presence
of this factor. It was found that crude cane molasses and crude unheated
cane juice were good sources of the factor, the latter being around 100
times as active. Due to the unavailability of crude cane juice, cane molasses
was first used for the extraction of the factor. Later cane juice
became available and was used exclusively.
We were able to extract and purify a crystalline compound which in a
daily dose of 0.002 y would relieve the stiffness induced by the skim milk
diet in 5 days. The low level of the easily hydrolyzable phosphorus
returned to normal values in the same time.

... (details in pdf at above link)

DISCUSSIONFrom this and other previously reported investigations (4-7) it becomes
apparent that the compound isolated from the cane molasses and the cane
juice is able to prevent and to cure the symptoms characteristic for the
deficiency. In view of the extremely small dosages required we feel justified
in classifying the compound as an essential metabolite. Work towards the
elucidation of its structure is in progress. It has not yet been possible to
establish whether this compound is also present in the previously isolated
fraction from raw cream.

SUMMARYA procedure for the isolation of a crystalline factor present in molasses
and raw cane juice, which cures an induced stiffness in guinea pigs, has been
described. The abnormal low level of the easily hydrolyzable P in the liver
of deficient animals can be returned to a normal value by the administration
of minute dosages of the antistiffness factor. The smallest curative dosage
is 0.002 y.

and if you wish to read a thread where a lot was discussed about the Wulzen factor (and where I copied most of this, rather than look it up again), read this from the junglegym forum (Weston Price) - the thread started about butter oil, but diverged into a discussion of the Wulzen factor:

Really shows that it's better to get the whole food, or even its raw form, than some isolated extract or active ingredient. We deprive ourselves of other substances when we do that, and we only get to find out about it later.

Anytime I see a study such as the one posted by Iggy, I get goosebumps.
All of the non-biased data that I've seen states that dairy helps CAUSE cancers, not prevent them. You can check all the stats yourself. The countries that consume the most dairy have the most disease. That dosen't sound like disease prevention to me..

Isolating only one factor as the cause of disease is one method of skewing the interpretations of statistical results.

For example, about dairy, aren't the same countries that consume the most dairy also the "most" wealthy? And therefore, wouldn't their citizens therefore be the least physically active? the most prone to eat unhealthy and/or processed foods? the most prone to obesity? the least likely to be out in the sun? the most prone to high sugar intakes? the least likely to eat raw foods and plant products? the least likely to have nitrilosides/amygdalin/vitamin B-17 in their diet?

So why blame only milk?

Because such studies were designed to look only at milk to the rejection of all other possible factors, whether or not the results are favorable for milk.

The same with isolating calcium as the cause in all those milk studies. There are a lot of other nutrients in milk besides calcium. And yet, studies just like to point to calcium, which is really unreasonable.

As for milk causing cancers, doctors have been using milk to TREAT cancers! So it's highly unlikely that statistically skewed results can beat actual clinical results. We have one highly successful doctor using milk as part of his regimen to treat various conditions, including cancer. He is Dr. Robin Navarro.

So when reading statistically based "research," we must be fully aware of the limitations of such sophisticated counting. They're not "non-biased" at all, because they can't be! Virtually all such studies disregard a lot of other possible factors, in spite of their heroic attempts to control or factor in (mathematically) all variables. For one, do we even know all the variables that must be taken into account? It's no different from the use of statistics to support the use of highly toxic drugs in cancer chemotherapy, or the use of statins in controlling cholesterol levels, or even the blaming of cholesterol levels for cardiovascular problems.

Quote:
For example, about dairy, aren't the same countries that consume the most dairy also the "most" wealthy?

What countries drink the most milk? Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweeden.
What countries have the most breast cancer? Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweeden.
What countries have the most osteoporosis? Yes, Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweeden.

A true researcher will not disregard all the other factors and just concentrate on only one factor. And neither should those who interpret and make use of the studies. Study results must be interpreted correctly and with proper discretion.

Let's again use the example of milk. So we have a lot of cases of cancer and osteoporosis in those countries. Is that enough to blame milk? No! because it does not explain that part of the same milk drinking population -- most likely still a majority -- that do not develop cancer or osteoporosis. Correlation is not the same as causation.

Long Island has the highest breast cancer rates of all the nation. So would this mean women drink more milk there?

I doubt it. It more likely has to do with benzene found in the water supply.

Anyway, this Dr Navarro. I was just thinking about him the other day. He does some testing for cancer antigen doesn't he? I 've heard that people send him their blood from all over the world for testing. Do you know about this?

Anyway, this Dr Navarro. I was just thinking about him the other day. He does some testing for cancer antigen doesn't he? I 've heard that people send him their blood from all over the world for testing. Do you know about this?

Arrow, the Dr. Navarro you're referring to is a different person. The urine HCG cancer test was developed by the late Dr. Manuel Navarro of the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines, and his son, Dr. Efren Navarro, continues his work today. I had a chance to meet Dr. Manuel Navarro in the late '70s. And an officemate (with breast cancer) has been seeing his son, Dr. Efren Navarro, for monitoring her condition.

These Navarros base their cancer prevention/treatment approach on the trophoblastic thesis of cancer (now presented in the World Without Cancer website). A concept in the approach is the need for trypsin, and thus, for cancer patients, they recommend limiting meat intake to reserve the body's supply of trypsin for dealing with cancer instead of being used up for digestion.

On the other hand, the doctor who has milk and beef as part of his overall rejuvenation and treatment program is Dr. Robin Navarro. His basis is restoring what he calls cellular balance, and his approach emphasizes the need for proteins, choline, omega FAs and minerals. His regimen is used for many health conditions, including cancer.